Union of India vs Amar Singh

G.C. Garg, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the executing court, whereby not only the objection petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed, but an application U/s 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also dismissed.

The facts giving rise to this revision petition in brief are that the land owned by the respondents was requisitioned under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The land was admittedly derequisitioned on 25.2.1987. Landowners filed a suit for the recovery of compensation on account of temporary requisitioning of land. The case of the plaintiffs was that they have not been paid compensation since March, 1971 despite repeated requests. They were thus entitled to compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1971 till February 25, 1987 with future interest. Plaintiffs while claiming the amount of compensation also claimed solatium at the rate of 30% besides interest etc. Defendants petitioners were proceeded exparte and ultimately the suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 30.1.1993. It was held that the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for the period Kharif 1971 to 1987 at the rate of Rs. 100/ per bigha per year, which came to Rs. 1550/ per bigha. Besides this the plaintiffs were also granted the interest at the rate of 15% per annum in view of the Full Bench judgment of this court in Hari Krishan Khosla v. Union of India and another, 1974 P.L.R. 658, the interest so calculated was worked out to Rs. 2032/ per bigha for the entire period and solatium at the rate of 30% was also held admissible in view of the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act. The solatium was thus worked out on Rs. 1550/ and the plaintiffs were held to be entitled to Rs. 465/ per bigha. Thus according to the trial court solatium, interest and compensation for the period 1971 to 1987 worked out to Rs. 4047.50 per bigha. The plaintiffs were also granted interest from 10.3.1987 till the date of the filing of the suit at the rate of 12% per annum with future interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of the suit till realisation. The defendants on coming to know of the exparte proceedings from the bank and on the advice of the counsel filed a writ petition in this court on 3.1.1994, but the same was finally dismissed on 8.8.1994 on the ground that the same was not maintainable as in such cases appropriate forum was available to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The Union of India thus filed an appeal in the court of District Judge, Patiala, with an application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The learned District Judge dismissed the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act by order dated 5.4.1995 and consequently dismissed the appeal as barred by time. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Judge, Union of India took the matter in revision to this court, but the same was dismissed on 31.8.1995 by N.K. Kapoor, J. Special Leave Petition against the order of the High Court was dismissed on 11.7.1996 and the review thereof was also dismissed on 11.2.1997.

During the pendency of the above proceedings decreeholders took out execution of the judgment and decree dated 30.1.1993.

At this stage it deserves to be noticed that a suit of similar nature and, for the period in question in this case, was filed by Amar Singh and others and the same was contested by the Union of India and ultimately the same was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 6.9.1996. The judgment in that suit has been placed on record by moving a civil misc. It was held that the landowners are not entitled to the arrears of rent or solatium and that the suit was barred by limitation.

The Union of India and others, petitioners herein filed an objection petition and also moved an application u/s 152 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the judgment and decree. It was stated that the plaintiffs were only entitled for the rent for the requisitioned period and there was no provision for the grant of solatium or the interest to the landowners and that the grant of these amounts was without jurisdiction and, therefore, the decree dated 30.1.1993 was a nullity atleast qua the relief of solatium and interest awarded to the decreeholders and that the suit for the recovery of arrears of rent for the period 1971 till 25.2.1987 was barred by time as suit was filed on 13.1.1990 and the limitation for the recovery of dues is only three years. The executing court by order dated 25.4.1996 dismissed the objection petition as also the application u/s 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence this revision at the instance of the defendants.

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the stand taken before the executing court and submitted that in a suit for recovery of rent in respect of the requisitioned properties by the Union of India, interest and solatium is not payable either under the provisions of Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act or under any other provisions of law. Learned counsel further submitted that interest and solatium was held payable by a Full Bench of this court in Hari Krishan Khosla v. Union of India and another (supra) in respect of acquisition of property under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, but that was a case of acquisition and not requisition. In respect of the property which was requisitioned solatium and interest as payable under the Land Acquisition Act is not payable and in any case the view taken by this court in Hari Krishan Khosla v. Union of India and another (supra) has already been set aside by the Apex Court. In the premises, learned counsel submitted that the decree granted by the trial court is a nullity and the executing court erred in dismissing the objection petition and holding that the decree is executable as it is.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffsrespondents sought to justify the grant of solatium and interest on the amount of rent, but learned counsel could not dispute that the property was never acquired under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act and rather the property in dispute was derequisitioned by notification dated 25.2.1987. Learned counsel by reference to any material on record could not justify the grant of solatium and interest on the amount of rent or refer to any material which may show that the trial court had the jurisdiction to grant these amounts under any provision of law or otherwise.

Learned counsel ultimately after having instructions from the plaintiffs, stated that the grant of relief of interest @ 15% i.e. in the sum of Rs. 2032/ on the amount of rent per bigha and solatium in the sum of Rs. 465/ per bigha may be declined to the landowners and the plaintiffs may be permitted to execute the decree for the rest of the amount, and it be taken that the trial court did not award the amount in the sum of Rs. 2032/ on account of interest @ 15% and Rs. 465/ on account of solatium at 30% on the requisitioned property per bigha.

For the stand taken by the learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent learned counsel for the Union of India could not show that the claimants are not entitled to the grant of the other amounts. In view of the fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and having regard to the fact that the trial court had no jurisdiction to award these amounts, the trial court shall now execute the decree only in respect of the rent at Rs. 1550/ per bigha besides interest @ 12% per annum from 1.3.1987 till the date of the suit and @ 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of the deposit or payment, whichever is earlier. It is also clarified that the interest at 12% and 6% shall be payable on the amount of Rs. 1550/ as on 1.3.1987. It is held that the plaintiffs are entitled to execute the decree for the recovery of rent at the rate of Rs. 1550/ per bigha with interest at 12% from March 1987 till the date of the suit and future interest on the rate of rent @ 6% from the date of the decree till realisation. The plaintiffs shall also be entitled to proportionate costs as awarded by the trial court.

In view of the above the revision stands partly allowed and the order passed by the executing court is modified and the matter is remitted to the executing court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the above observations. In case the decreeholders have already been paid in excess of their entitlement, they shall be directed to refund the amount received by them in excess with interest at the same rate at which it has been granted to them. In case the plaintiffs are still entitled to receive some amount under the decree as clarified by this order, the same shall be got paid to them by the executing court in accordance with law. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the executing court on 3.11.1997 for further proceedings. Parties shall, however, bear their own costs of this revision petition.